Don’t Buy the Slippery-Slope Argument on Guns

By Cass Sunstein -
Apr 29, 2013

In 1991, the economist Albert
Hirschman published a biting, funny and subversive book, “The
Rhetoric of Reaction,” whose principal goal was to provide a
kind of reader’s guide to conservative objections to social
reform. Hirschman wanted to demonstrate that such objections are
pervasive, mechanical, routinized and often unconvincing.

Hirschman used the words “perversity” and “futility” to
describe his best examples of reactionary rhetoric.
Conservatives often object that reforms will turn out to be
perverse, because they will have the opposite of their intended
effect. For example, those who oppose increases in the minimum
wage contend that such increases will worsen unemployment and
thus hurt the very people they are intended to help -- a clear
example of perversity.

Alternatively, conservatives argue that reforms will do
nothing to solve the problem that they purport to address. For
example, those who oppose gun-control legislation contend that
such laws will fail to decrease gun-related deaths -- a clear
example of futility.

Hirschman agreed that such arguments are sometimes right,
and he emphasized that progressives have routine rhetorical
moves of their own. But his primary goal was to try to inoculate
people against arguments that, while seemingly forceful, come
out of a kind of reactionary’s playbook, and that shouldn’t be
accepted until we have scrutinized them.

Pernicious Argument

Illuminating though it is, Hirschman’s account misses an
especially pernicious example of the rhetoric of reaction: the
slippery-slope argument. According to that argument, we should
reject Reform A, which is admittedly not so terrible, because it
would inevitably put us on a slippery slope to Reform B, which
is really bad.

Examples are all around us. The federal government
shouldn’t require background checks for gun purchasers because,
if it does, it will be on the path toward banning gun ownership.
The Supreme Court shouldn’t force states to recognize same-sex
marriages because, if it does, it will have to require states to
recognize polygamous marriages.

Barack Obama’s administration shouldn’t intervene in Libya
because, if it does, it will turn the U.S. into the globe’s
policeman, intervening whenever it likes. The government
shouldn’t require people to buy health insurance because if it
does, it will eventually require people to exercise and buy
broccoli.

The problem with slippery-slope contentions is that despite
their occasional rhetorical force, they are often silly. To
appreciate the problem, it is important to see that these
arguments come in two quite different forms. Some versions are
purely logical. The claim is that if you undertake Reform A, you
are logically committed to Reform B, as well. Other versions
aren’t logical but empirical. The claim is that if you undertake
Reform A, you will probably end up undertaking Reform B, as
well, not because of logic but because of the likely unfolding
of events.

As a matter of logic, slippery-slope arguments can be
convincing. If you say you oppose racial segregation in public
schools in New York, you are almost certainly committed to
opposing racial segregation in public schools in Los Angeles.

In many cases, however, your support for Reform A doesn’t
commit you to support Reform B. Those who believe that
government shouldn’t discriminate against gay men and lesbians,
and thus should allow same-sex marriages, needn’t think that the
right to marry should be extended to polygamous couples. If you
favor background checks for gun purchasers, you can also believe
that the Second Amendment provides firm protection for the right
to own guns.

Lazy Logic

When they claim logical necessity, slippery-slope arguments
can be lazy. Reform B is often a lot different from Reform A,
and with a little work, the difference is easy to identify.

Empirical slippery-slope positions aren’t self-evidently
wrong. If the government requires background checks before
people can buy guns, maybe it will be more willing to consider
other restrictions on gun ownership. Maybe a humanitarian
intervention in Libya will make the U.S. more likely to
undertake other humanitarian interventions.

But the opposite could easily be true. After requiring
background checks, the government may be more reluctant to
impose other restrictions on gun ownership. One humanitarian
intervention may well decrease the national appetite for other
humanitarian interventions.

When opponents argue against Reform A by saying it will
lead to Reform B, it is often best to assume that the slippery-
slope argument is merely a rhetorical move. It isn’t the real
reason they oppose Reform A. When they point to the supposedly
slippery slope, it is only because they know a lot of their
fellow citizens favor Reform A -- so they try to scare them by
changing the subject and talking about Reform B instead.
(Progressives, and not only conservatives, like to exploit this
strategy.)

As the date of publication approached, Hirschman tried to
change the title of his book from “The Rhetoric of Reaction”
to “The Rhetoric of Intransigence.” His publisher dissuaded
him, arguing that book buyers wouldn’t be attracted to the word
“intransigence.” Fair enough, but it’s a good word. Slippery-
slope arguments usually reflect intransigence. Let’s not be
fooled by them.

(Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor
at Harvard Law School, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the
former administrator of the White House Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, the co-author of “Nudge” and author of
“Simpler: The Future of Government.” The opinions expressed
are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article:
Cass R. Sunstein at csunstei@law.harvard.edu.